|
DRB ruling on Signal
|
Lee Ann Riesen
|
Oct 21, 2009 09:57 PDT
|
Hello everyone. The DRB ruled this morning against the vacation of
Signal. I think the reason was that vacation of a road needs to show
a benefit to the community, and there was no benefit shown.
At one point a developer said that "the neighborhood association" would
maintain the vacated road. I asked him later what he meant by that.
He said he misspoke. He meant that the homeowners' association set up
for the homes north of Signal would be responsible for maintaining
that right of way as a path or whatever it would be.
The developers can appeal, but it it's not clear whether or not they
will appeal. The church just wants to be done with this, so they
may make their Signal improvements under the assumption that it is
a road and not a path.
Lee Ann
--
=====================================================================
Lee Ann Riesen, laf-@swcp.com
|
|
 |
|
